Fwd: Could GE Crop Regulations Be Any Weaker?

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

 

officeReply-to: notice-reply-83wkbdsr2j5i6bi3To: cyndikrallSent: 2/25/2009 8:48:24 A.M. Pacific Standard TimeSubj: Could GE Crop Regulations Be Any Weaker?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could GE Crop Regulations Be Any Weaker?

 

 

Surprising as it may seem, the answer could be “yes!†In the waning months of the Bush Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a proposal to completely overhaul its regulation of genetically engineered crops, significantly weakening its oversight. No longer would USDA start from the assumption that a new GE crop must be regulated; and some could be exempted altogether. The proposed rule would virtually ensure that contamination of organic and conventional crops will become even more frequent, and even excuses the Agency from taking any action to remedy such contamination. And, the rule would continue to allow the dangerous practice of producing drugs and industrial chemicals in food crops grown in the open environment. In short, if implemented, the proposed rule would allow the wholesale deregulation of the agricultural biotechnology industry.Over four years ago, USDA promised stricter oversight of genetically engineered crops; unfortunately, improvements considered early-on have vanished and the regulations have instead become weaker. The proposed rule now has even more gaping holes than the regulations it is replacing, and creates a few new ones as well, resulting in more public exposure to untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods. Instead of tightening controls to protect the public and the environment from contamination and harm, what USDA has offered further endangers the public’s right to choose the foods families eat and farmers’ right to their chosen livelihoods. To make matters worse, USDA published the rule before publishing the full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by law, and in the absence of public review of the data needed to make regulatory recommendations. Clearly, there is something wrong with this picture. We are calling on the Obama Administration to reject the irresponsible Bush “anything goes†biotech policy. And we are requesting a moratorium on commercial planting of any new GE crops until comprehensive regulations are in place.The good news is that USDA has reopened the comment period on the proposed rule and we are seizing this opportunity to ask the new Administration to take a fresh look at how GE crops are regulated. We urge our supporters to join us in demanding that the Agency release the EIS for public comment before it proceeds with any further rule-making or GE crop approvals. Public comments are being accepted through March 17, 2009. Tell USDA to: (1) Withdraw the proposed rule; (2) Release the EIS for public review and comment and to be used as a basis for further rule-making; and (3) Suspend all new GE crop approvals until the above has been satisfactorily completed and unless and until GE crops are proven safe.

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023

Below is the sample letter:

Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023

Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],

Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023Regulatory Analysis and DevelopmentPPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road Unit 118Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.Re: Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023, Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release into the Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms. I am very concerned about the risks posed by genetically engineered crops--especially those crops engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicides and crops that produce drugs and industrial chemicals. They threaten human health, family farmers, wildlife, and the environment. I urge USDA to withdraw the proposed rule, publish the Environmental Impact Statement, and suspend all new GE crop approvals in the interim. After USDA releases the EIS, a comment period of at least 90 days is needed so the public has the opportunity to fully participate in a transparent process on this important issue. This will not only aid in the development of t he final EIS but also in the drafting of a new proposed rule. The current proposed rule does little to close the loopholes in the regulations the rule is designed to replace and it creates more gaps than it fills. For example:

As currently proposed, the rule allows biotech companies to self-assess the safety of their own experimental GE crops to determine whether USDA should even regulate them. The proposed criteria are open-ended, subjective, and would substantially reduce USDA?s oversight of a wide range of GE crops. Most egregiously, it is not genetic engineering that triggers regulation under the rule, it is the determination that the technology "poses a potential plant pest risk" and it is the developer that makes that initial decision. This is a clear abdication of regulatory responsibility by USDA. The proposed rule would also allow companies to grow some GE crops with no oversight whatsoever. Under the proposed "tiered system," USDA could eliminate entire categories of GE crops or varieties with which they have "familiarity," despite the USDA?s acknowledgement that doing so would "increase gene flow between GE and non-GE crops." This policy virtually ensures that contaminatio n episodes will become more frequent. To add insult to injury, USDA has proposed to include a "Low Level Presence" policy in the law which excuses it from taking any action to remove experimental GE crop material from conventional or organic food, feed, and seed. Experience shows that such contamination often causes severe economic harm to farmers, and could threaten the environment as well. Further, USDA's proposal of "Conditional Exclusion" wrongly enables developers to obtain exemptions from permit requirements without publication, notice, or public comment. This unfairly limits transparency and blocks the public from participation in important decisions that affect public health, the environment, and the economy. Despite repeated assurances that pharmaceutical and industrial GE crops would be subjected to increased monitoring, reporting, oversight, and management, USDA rejected scientifically-sound options that would have banned outdoor cultivation of GE phar maceutical- and chemical-producing food crops. This is the only way to ensure that untested drugs and industrial chemicals don't end up in our food. It also ignores the strong support such protective action enjoys from citizens and the food industry. USDA has also refused to propose any controls on pesticide-promoting GE crops, despite documented increases in pesticide use caused by herbicide-tolerant crops and an epidemic of resistant weeds that have been fostered by these crops.Finally, the rule includes language that bars state or local regulation of GE crops that are more protective than its own weak rule. I strongly oppose such preemptive language that would bar local or state authorities from putting meaningful regulations or restrictions on GE crops in place that best suit their communities.In sum, I urge you to: (1) Withdraw the proposed rule; (2) Release the EIS for public review and comment, and to be used as a basis for further rule-making; and (3 ) Suspend all new GE crop approvals until the above has been satisfactorily completed and unless and until GE crops are proven safe.

Sincerely,Celia Browne

 

 

 

 

Take Action!

 

 

Instructions:Click here to take action on this issue

Tell-A-Friend:Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. Tell-a-Friend!

What's At Stake:

To read our substantive, organizational comments from the previous comment period CLICK HERE

The full text of the USDA APHIS proposed rule, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023, can be found HERE

 

Campaign Expiration Date:March 17, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Center for Food Safety.

 

 

 

 

This message was sent to cyndikrall. Visit your subscription management page to modify your email communication preferences or update your personal profile. To stop ALL email from Center for Food Safety, click to remove yourself from our lists (or reply via email with "remove or " in the subject line).

 

 

 

A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!